1. Whether an innkeeper or hotel, which encourages and facilitates patrons' use of a public beach, has a duty to warn the patrons of potential hazards posed by the beach.

2. Whether an innkeeper or hotel, which encourages and facilitates patrons' use of a public beach, has "a duty to take reasonable care to discover the actual condition of the land under water in the area, wherein his guests were invited and permitted to bathe, and . . . warn them of its dangerous condition."

1. No. Imposing a duty on innkeepers to warn of risks and hazards over which they have no control would subject them to limitless liability.

2. No. An innkeeper owes no duty to discover the actual condition of the land under water at a public beach, even though the innkeeper encourages use of the beach.

Peter Zeiler drowned while swimming at Copacabana Beach in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. He and Regina Darby, the administratrix, were guests at the Meridien Copacabana Hotel. The hotel encouraged guests to use the Copacabana public beach by providing them with chairs, towels, and a security escort service across the four-lane public highway. In addition, the hotel warned guests about sun exposure and crime on the beach. However, the hotel did not warn guests of rip tides. The beach is maintained by the Brazilian government. In the event of a rip tide, lifeguards put up flags and call helicopters to rescue swimmers.

Darby brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging Zeiler drowned in a rip tide and that the hotel was negligent for not warning Zeiler of the beach's dangerous surf conditions. The District Court granted Defendants' summary judgment motion. The Second Circuit certified two questions for the Court of Appeals. The Court accepted certification, answering both questions in the negative.

The Court analyzed cases establishing innkeepers' duties. The Court cited Princess Hotels Int'l, Inc. v. Superior Court, a California case, where the court held that "a hotel has no duty to warn its guests of a dangerous condition of adjacent property over which the hotel has no control, to wit, the ocean currents." Therefore, the Court noted that the weight of authority was against finding a duty because Zeiler was injured away from hotel premises, on a beach owned, maintained, and controlled by the Brazilian government.

Furthermore, although the hotel encouraged use of the beach and provided certain services, it is not an insurer of its guests' safety on the beach. To impose such a duty would require innkeepers "to oversee whether the entity maintaining the beach" was doing so properly. In addition, such a duty would expose innkeepers to limitless liability resulting from hazards over which they have no control. Thus, the Court concluded that "no jury question of negligence is presented under the facts of this case." Lastly, the Court answered the second question by stating that "a hotel or innkeeper owes no duty to discover the actual condition of the land under water at the beach, even though it encourages and facilitates the use of the beach."